In a legal malpractice
action, the plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence
three essential elements:

that the defendant, <name
of defendant>, was the plaintiff's attorney in the matter of <nature
of representation>;

that the attorney
departed from the standard of professional care owed to protect the
plaintiff's legal interests in that matter; and

that this departure was
a legal cause of harm to the plaintiff. I shall explain the term
"legal cause" to you in more detail shortly.

[In this case, the
defendant has conceded that (he/she) represented the plaintiff for
the purpose of <nature of representation>.]

[<If the defendant has
not conceded that (he/she) represented the plaintiff for such
purpose:> As to the first element of legal malpractice, the
defendant denies that (he/she) had an attorney-client relationship
with the plaintiff regarding the transaction[s] which (is/are) the
subject of the plaintiff's claim of professional negligence.

An attorney-client
relationship is established when the advice and assistance of an
attorney is sought and received in matters pertinent to the legal
profession. It is the obligation of an attorney to provide the
legal services for which (he/she) was hired. This duty extends only
to those services within the legal profession which the attorney
agreed, expressly or impliedly, to provide on behalf of the client
and does not extend to the business of the plaintiff in general.

The burden is on the
plaintiff to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that such an
attorney-client relationship existed between the parties with
respect to the malpractice alleged by the plaintiff.]

In an ordinary negligence
action, for instance, one brought to recover damages for injuries
arising out of an automobile accident, the jury does not need
evidence as to the degree of care which the automobile operator
should have used under the circumstances, as it is assumed that,
from your own experience, you are aware of the necessary degree of
care. In a malpractice action, however, the situation, as I am sure
you understand, is quite different. Malpractice is really
professional negligence. Because jurors are probably unfamiliar
with legal procedures, methods, and strategies, you obviously cannot
be expected to know the demands of proper legal representation. It
is for this reason that expert testimony is required to define the
standard of care or the duty owing from the lawyer to his client,
whether that duty has been breached, and whether that breach of duty
caused the damages the plaintiff claims, so that you can reasonably
and logically conclude what the proper standard of professional care
was, whether or not it was violated, and whether that violation was
a legal cause of harm to the plaintiff.1

Although the standard of
care is a matter of expert opinion, the determination of the facts
and the measuring of the facts by the standard is for you, the jury.

The rule of law applicable
in legal malpractice cases is as follows: An attorney, in
representing a client, is obligated to exercise that degree of
knowledge, skill, and diligence which lawyers in Connecticut and in
the same general line of practice as the defendant ordinarily have
and exercise in similar cases. You will recall that we are talking
about a lawyer practicing in the field of <area of law>.

<Recite allegations.>

The plaintiff need not
prove that the defendant failed to possess and use the required
knowledge, skill, and diligence in all the ways alleged. It is
enough if the plaintiff proves one or more of the allegations of
professional negligence, provided the plaintiff also proves that
such negligence, if proven, was a legal cause of the plaintiff's
damages.

The test in this case for
determining what constitutes sufficient knowledge, skill, and
diligence on the part of the defendant is that which attorneys
ordinarily have and exercise in similar cases. That means that the
law does not expect from an attorney the utmost care and skill
obtainable or known to the profession. Furthermore, the fact that
the representation was unsuccessful or the result was not as
favorable as hoped by the client or the attorney raises no
presumption of lack of knowledge, skill, or diligence. Negligence
and unskillfulness are not presumed. As previously stated, the
plaintiff has the burden of proof in this regard.

In order, then, to obtain
a verdict against the defendant, the plaintiff must prove, by a fair
preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant was the
plaintiff's attorney regarding <nature of representation>;
that the defendant failed to possess or exercise the knowledge,
skill, and diligence ordinarily exercised by such an attorney in one
or more of the ways alleged, and that that lack of knowledge, skill,
and diligence was a legal cause of the plaintiff's damages.
_______________________________________________________

1 Expert
testimony is not required where there is such an obvious and gross
lack of care and skill that it is clear even to a layperson.
Davis v. Margolis, 215 Conn. 408, 416 n.6 (1990). Some Superior
Court opinions have held that whether the exception applies is a
question of law. Thompson v. Putnam Kitchens, Superior
Court, judicial district of Stamford-Norwalk at Stamford, Docket No.
CV 02 0188635 (December 7, 2004); Faulise v. Eisenstein,
Superior Court, judicial district of New Britain, Docket No. CV 98
0490341 (October 30, 2000, Kocay, J.); Digioia v.
Greenberg, Superior Court, judicial district of New Haven,
Docket No. CV 0350406 (October 11, 1995).